issue144 [OB小组] 第9次作业 批评家,艺术家

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

题目：ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
字数：387          用时：00:50:00          日期：2007-7-21 上午 09:49:16
----------------------------------
In this assertion, the author suggests that it's the artist who gives society something of lasing value rather than the critic. After considering some facets of the issue, I totally agree with the author's assertion.

First of all, artists are great for they're the somebody who dare to create something that is never seen before. Art varieties in many area like paintings, music, operas as well as literature. In ancient times, people lack the ability to take photos, in stead, they paint. Almost everybody knows the painting of Mona lisa's smile by Leonado da Vinci, when you are standing in front of the paiting in Louvre Palace, you'll be strongly shocked by its art effect. Besides that, we know Charles Choplin, his funny performance impressed everybody, which has a lasting value as well as the painting of Mona Lisa's smile. Talked about literature, there're many more great art works such as Shakespears' comedies and tragedies as well as the Analects of Confucius. They all have great impression on the future generations.

On the other hand, critics don't have the ability to create something. What they do is to have some critical comment on existed things, which values little. Sometimes, the comments are unfair even with individual tendency, as a result, they cannot reflect the value of art works themselves. On the other hand, critics are mostly the conservatives, which results in the encumbrance of advanced art. They may keep the old thoughts and refused to accept the newly inventions. As a result, they may impact the development on art and for themselves, the critical comments don't have a lasting value in all circumstance since people are easy to remember those goodness rather than the criticism.

In addition, there's a fact that no artists, no critics. But no critics, there're still artists. The critical comments by critics are all based on the art works of the artists. Without those art works, critics become useless. Thus, critics are more or less an addition to the artists. It's the fact that it's always easy to criticize than to create.

To sum up, with the above-mentioned arguments, it's clear that critics are not in the same place with artists. What a critics do violate the development of the society while on the other hand, what an artist do help accelerate the development of the society. At length, I agree with the author's assertion that "it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

[ 本帖最后由 phillipsarea 于 2007-7-21 15:02 编辑 ]

ldongxpUID: 2311083

In this assertion, the author suggests that it's the artist who gives society something of lasing value rather than the critic. After considering some facets of the issue, I totally agree with the author's assertion.

First of all, artists are great for they're the somebody who dare to create something that is never seen before.[这个主题句不是蛮好] Art varieties in many area like paintings, music, operas as well as literature. In ancient times, people lack the ability to take photos, in stead, they paint. Almost everybody knows the painting of Mona lisa's smile by Leonado da Vinci, when you are standing in front of the paiting in Louvre Palace, you'll be strongly shocked by its art effect. Besides that, we know Charles Choplin, his funny performance impressed everybody, which has a lasting value as well as the painting of Mona Lisa's smile. Talked about literature, there're many more great art works such as Shakespears' comedies and tragedies as well as the Analects of Confucius. They all have great impression on the future generations.

On the other[one] hand, critics don't have the ability to create something. What they do is to have some critical comment on existed things, which values little. Sometimes, the comments are unfair even with individual tendency, as a result, they cannot reflect the value of art works themselves. On the other hand, critics are mostly the conservatives,[武断了] which results in the encumbrance of advanced art. They may keep the old thoughts and refused to accept the newly inventions. As a result, they may impact the development on art and for themselves, the critical comments don't have a lasting value in all circumstance since people are easy to remember those goodness rather than the criticism.

In addition, there's a fact that no artists, no critics. But no critics, there're still artists. The critical comments by critics are all based on the art works of the artists. Without those art works, critics become useless. Thus, critics are more or less an addition to the artists. It's the fact that it's always easy to criticize than to create.

To sum up, with the above-mentioned arguments, it's clear that critics are not in the same place with artists. What a critics do violate the development of the society while on the other hand, what an artist do help accelerate the development of the society. At length, I agree with the author's assertion that "it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

50min,含不含提纲时间？

OB叔UID: 188695

题目写错了，是issue144 呵呵

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

就是从接触题目到AWP的PROCEED的时间,我只在脑子里面想想就开始写了,没列过提纲.

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

已经改过来了,呵呵,谢谢啊!

stanlenUID: 2319551

这方面的题材正好也是我的薄弱项,来看看lz的

OB叔UID: 188695

take seat first

xiao8686UID: 2266881

In this assertion, the author suggests that it's the artist who givessociety something of lasing value rather than the critic. Afterconsidering some facets of the issue, I totally agree with the author'sassertion.

First of all, artists are great for that they're the (不要the) somebody(someone) who dare tocreate something that is never seen before. Art varieties in many arealike paintings, music, operas as well as literature. In ancient times,people lack the ability to take photos(这句表达有误), in stead, they paint. Almosteverybody knows the painting of Mona lisa's smile by Leonado da Vinci,when you are standing in front of the paiting in Louvre Palace, you'llbe strongly shocked by its artistic effect. Besides that, we know CharlesChoplin, his funny performance impressed everybody, which has a lastingvalue as well as the painting of Mona Lisa's smile. Talked (talking) aboutliterature, there're many more great art works such as Shakespears'comedies and tragedies as well as the Analects of Confucius. They allhave great impression on the future generations.
后面的例子不能很好的证明这一段的t p。

On the other hand, critics don't have the ability to create something.What they do is to have some critical comment on existed things, whichvalues little. Sometimes, the comments are unfair even with individualtendency（这句话表达有误）, as a result, they cannot reflect the value of art worksthemselves. On the other hand, critics are mostly the conservatives（这个不一定吧...）,which results in the encumbrance of advanced art. They may keep the oldthoughts and refused to accept the newly inventions. As a result, theymay impact the development on art and for themselves, the criticalcomments don't have a lasting value in all circumstance since peopleare easy to remember those goodness rather than the criticism.（这一段论证的不太好，有一些观点都不太对，如果要写比较偏的观点，要有强有力的说理和例子来支撑。）

In addition, there's a fact that no artists, no critics. But nocritics, there're still artists. （这一句表达过于口语化）The critical comments by critics areall based on the art works of the artists. Without those art works,critics become useless. Thus, critics are more or less an addition tothe artists. It's the fact that it's always easy to criticize than tocreate. （这一段论证的不够充分）

To sum up, with the above-mentioned arguments, it's clear that criticsare not in the same place with artists.（这句话表达有误） What a critics do violate thedevelopment of the society while on the other hand,（这个观点文章中没有很好的证明） what an artist dohelp accelerate the development of the society. At length, I agree withthe author's assertion that "it is the artist, not the critic, whogives society something of lasting value."

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

这篇文章是问题比较大,限时了,所以观点都选择不大好

pesticideUID: 2359145

In this assertion, the author suggests that it's the artist who gives society something of lasing value rather than the critic. After considering some facets of the issue, I totally agree with the author's assertion.

First of all, artists are great for they're the somebody who dare to create something that is never seen before. Art varieties in many area like paintings, music, operas as well as literature. In ancient times, people lack the ability to take photos, in stead, they paint. Almost everybody knows the painting of Mona lisa's smile by Leonado da Vinci, when you are standing in front of the paiting in Louvre Palace, you'll be strongly shocked by its art effect. Besides that, we know Charles Choplin, his funny performance impressed everybody, which has a lasting value as well as the painting of Mona Lisa's smile. Talked about literature, there're many more great art works such as Shakespears' comedies and tragedies as well as the Analects of Confucius. They all have great impression on the future generations.(再深入具体一点就好)

On the other hand, critics don't have the ability to create something. What they do is to have some critical comment on existed things, which values little. Sometimes, the comments are unfair even with individual tendency, as a result, they cannot reflect the value of art works themselves. On the other hand, (前面没有对比的东西，是否用besides, 或moreover更好)critics are mostly the conservatives, which results in the encumbrance of advanced art. They may keep the old thoughts and refused to accept the newly inventions(innovation). As a result, they may impact the development on art and for themselves, the critical comments don't have a lasting value in all circumstance since people are easy to remember those goodness rather than the criticism.

In addition, there's a fact that no artists, no critics. But no critics, there're still artists. The critical comments by critics are all based on the art works of the artists. Without those art works, critics become useless. Thus, critics are more or less an addition(accessory) to the artists. It's the fact that it's always easy to criticize than to create.

To sum up, with the above-mentioned arguments, it's clear that critics are not in the same place with artists. What a critics do violate the development of the society while on the other hand, what an artist do help accelerate the development of the society. At length, I agree with the author's assertion that "it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

总体较好。结构，组织，语言都不错。

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

谢谢！要好好看看．